They are some of the remarks that the National Institute of Urban Planning has sent to the Senate Environment Commission which is examining the ddl for urban regeneration.
The INU asks for clarification or rethinking on some specific provisions and passages. These include the assignment to the Regions of the task of recognizing a volumetric increase compared to the existing not more than 20% of the original volume in cases of demolition and reconstruction. This regardless the context of the buildings, their location, their urban density, current use and other urban and environmental aspects.
The INU hopes that the bill desist from assigning the inappropriate task to the Regions and affirm, if anything, the centrality of the urban project, leaving to the municipal councils the decisions regarding the places and the extent of any incentives by increasing the building capacity.
Together with the greater building capacity, the reduction of private contributions to the construction of the public city by up to 70% also relies on the activating force of the urban land rent. Also in this case this happens in an a priori way, without verifying whether the proposed reductions are really necessary to make private investment feasible or whether they are an unnecessary gift to the detriment of the quality of public spaces.
Urban regeneration, the INU opinion on the billFurthermore, the INU is perplexed by the set of detailed provisions contained in articles 10 and 11. First of all, it must be said that these provisions refer to aims (the priority of urban regeneration, the contrast of land consumption) e propose activities (knowledge of urban planning forecasts not implemented, unused properties, degraded areas, etc.) of which the urban plans that are drawn up today are already taken care of, also in compliance with specific regional laws.
Therefore, the INU does not share the request that the Municipalities take on a long series of obligations in parallel or in any case disconnected from the normal planning activity of the territory already governed by regional laws. It’s believed that it would be more useful to direct the activity of the Municipalities towards updating their general plans, when obsolete, and their more frequent updating.
Then the INU reports that the introduction of municipal urban regeneration plans as a tool of general application requires a coordination in the system of territorial governance instruments, which does not seem adequately resolved by the mere overlapping of the new plan on the general municipal one and by the mere juxtaposition to other planning tools, such as the recovery plan of the existing building stock.
In addition to the findings and indications, the INU emphasizes some merits of the bill. Among them: the programming of state financial resources for urban regeneration over a long period (500 million a year for 20 years); the link between city planning and state and local real estate taxation; the integration of the urban regeneration strategy with the strategy of contrasting land use and its projection towards the energy transition.
Among the points of the law that the INU considers relevant is the imposition, to the defaulting Regions, of a deadline for drawing up landscape plans in agreement with the Ministry for Cultural Heritage and Activities and to approve them, and the forecast of the exercise of surrogate powers by the Ministry (art. 11, c. 3). The six-month deadline appears too short to be respected, and therefore will need to be reasonably reconsidered.
Source: Edilportale.com by www.edilportale.com.
*The article has been translated based on the content of Edilportale.com by www.edilportale.com. If there is any problem regarding the content, copyright, please leave a report below the article. We will try to process as quickly as possible to protect the rights of the author. Thank you very much!
*We just want readers to access information more quickly and easily with other multilingual content, instead of information only available in a certain language.
*We always respect the copyright of the content of the author and always include the original link of the source article.If the author disagrees, just leave the report below the article, the article will be edited or deleted at the request of the author. Thanks very much! Best regards!